Search for: "Greatbatch Ltd." Results 1 - 16 of 16
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2010, 4:26 pm by blaisemouttet
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7722787.htmlThis patent from Greatbatch Ltd. has relatively early priority (2/5/1999) and includes some basic claims to metal vanadium oxide nanoparticles used in forming the anodes of lithium ion batteries. [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 9:10 am by Dennis Crouch
I had hoped that the Federal Circuit would quickly change its ways, but the court has now issued a new R.36 Judgment in a PTO Appeal: GreatBatch Ltd. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 8:58 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 12:22 pm by Stan Gibson
Fla. 15, 2011) (affirming magistrate judge’s order striking defenses because defendant violated court’s order and hacked plaintiffs privileged emails); see also Greatbatch Ltd v. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 12:17 pm
Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 10:00 pm by Stephanie Figueroa
Patent No. 7,363,090 entitled BAND STOP FILTER EMPLOYING A CAPACITOR AND AN INDUCTOR TANK CIRCUIT TO ENHANCE MRI COMPATIBILITY OF ACTIVE IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICES and owned by Greatbatch, Ltd. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 10:00 pm by Stephanie Figueroa
Patent No. 7,363,090 entitled BAND STOP FILTER EMPLOYING A CAPACITOR AND AN INDUCTOR TANK CIRCUIT TO ENHANCE MRI COMPATIBILITY OF ACTIVE IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICES and owned by Greatbatch, Ltd. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 5:28 am
(Patently-O) Five facts about patent quality (Patent Quality Review Blog)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Means-plus-function claims – defining the scope of corresponding structure: Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v Greatbatch Ltd (Patently-O) CAFC enforces agree-to but unsigned settlement terms: MedPointe Healthcare v Walter Kozachuk (not precedential) (Patently-O) Distinguishing MedImmune: CAFC denies declaratory judgment jurisdiction: Innovative… [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 1:58 pm
" O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. [read post]